Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 27

Jew gold

In one of the South Park episodes Cartman asks Kyle to hand out his "jew gold". Kyle denies it at first, then he gives him a decoy bag filled with rocks, but finally gives him a bag filled with gold which hung around his neck. Now I know South Park is a satirical show, but once I asked, semi-seriously, a friend of mine, who is a Jew, about it, and he changed the subject rather quickly, without answering the question. Also I remember that an old neighbor of mine, who spent some time in the concentration camp, told me once that he was surprise when some of his friends, who were Jews, came to the camp, they had huge amounts of gold hidden on their body. Since I don’t know any other Jews, could you tell me if its true that all Jews (or most of them) have such bags on them at all times? And don’t worry, I’m not planning to rob any Jews, I just find it interesting, that not many people know about it, if it’s true. Thanks. 92.244.144.224 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Hanukkah gelt? --Jayron32 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably a reference to many Jews being rich bankers. --Tango (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no such thing as "Jew gold." (I am Jewish and I assure you that I have no gold on me right now.) It's an anti-Semitic trope that Jews hoard wealth. It's not that surprising that Jews arriving at concentration camps would bring gold with them. It would make sense to take any gold you have, usually in jewelry form, because it may be useful to buy things when you don't know where you're going or to bribe officials or guards as part of an escape plan. It didn't help most Holocaust victims because they were stripped of their possessions upon arriving at the camps.

Jews throughout history have often had to flee their homes on a moment's notice and having gold as a backup plan makes sense in such situations. I knew a Holocaust survivor who from his traumatic experience learned to keep several hundred dollars in cash on him at all times just in case he had to buy a plane ticket in a hurry. —D. Monack ^talk 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was about to say. Carrying gold around today?... What for? A few grand make sense, but could you picture a Jew (for additional comical effect we are going to assume this is an orthodox Jew, complete with hat and beard) going to the airport and saying "I need to leave the country quick, a ticket please, here are 100 ducats"? No, the only place where all Jews have gold with them is antisemitic stories and stories using such stereotypes, such as Walter Scott's Ivanhoe.--Alþykkr (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if Jewish people (or anyone) realy did carry around large amounts of gold regularly, you can be assured that even if you don't want to, there would be plenty of people who would want to rob them who would know about it, so it wouldn't be such a secret. And anyway most of them wouldn't be carrying it unless they somehow had unlimited supplies because they likely would have already had it stolen. So it's sort of a self defeating thing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my brief search of the internet (type "Jew Gold" into your favorite search engine), it appears that the South Park episode started the idea. Urban dictionary has 6(!) definitions, all essentially the same, and all appearing to originate from the South Park episode. The South Park reference undoubtedly comes from the stereotype that Jews are rich and greedy (and indeed, there are many prominent, wealthy Jews. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of rich Jews vs. rich others in the west to see how accurate the stereotype is). Buddy431 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that, for once, WikiAnswers has a response far superior to anything posted here. See this link. Buddy431 (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Awesome. Full disclosure: I must admit that, on the advice of Decision Moose, I own a substantial stake in the GLD exchange-traded fund in an IRA. I guess that could count as my "Jew gold" but I can't spend it until I'm 59½ without a substantial penalty. Those damn, anti-Semitic IRA withdrawal rules. —D. Monack ^talk 07:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Indeed a search on usenet finds most references from before the episode [1] are about gold that belonged to Jewish people that was stolen during WW2 and the holocaust Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A possible origin for the myth might be diamonds. As this site claims, "During the Inquisition, diamonds proved to be an invaluable asset for the Jews. Unlike almost any other asset, they were small enough to be concealed on the body; and they were also instantly redeemable for money in any country in Europe." TastyCakes (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also in many parts of medieval Europe, Jews were prohibited by law from many trades, so finance and trading in precious metals were some of the few ways that they could make a living. See Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages)#Restrictions to marginal occupations (tax collecting, moneylending, etc.). Alansplodge (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend probably changed the subject quickly because he was insulted but didn't want to show it. APL (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a myth. Diamonds sewn into the hems of clothing on the other hand are a transportable and hard-to-detect form of wealth.Edison (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Marathon Man (film), quote: Szell is in America to sell off his large cache of diamonds, which he had taken from Jews he had exterminated at Auschwitz . 195.35.160.133 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

3D movie impact?

Would 3D movies become as common as talkies and color film? F (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think studios would like that to happen because 3D movies are not so easily pirated, but I doubt it. The technology has been around for ages, but it never really took off. Why would that happen now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Why would it happen now? Actually, it is happening now to some degree. High profile releases such as Avatar (2009 film) and Alice in Wonderland (2010 film), among others are presented in 3D. There seems to a current trend for more movies to be this way. 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article I read recently claimed that the old 3D films were so awful it turned people off 3D. The advent of 3D films that are actually good might revive it. I'm reminded of the video game crash of 1983 - ask people around that time and they'd have said video games were a passing fad that wouldn't take off. And now... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland wasn't true 3d. Well, at least the live action portions were not. It's the modern equivalent of colorizing a black and white film. There were lots of noticeable artifacts. I hope that these "fake 3d" films that are advertised as real 3d don't sour public opinion of 3d. Frankly I'm surprised that the studios aren't concerned about this. APL (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should we know? Anything could happen.APL (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These days, a large amount of the income for the movie industry comes from DVD (and Blu-ray) sales, so 3D films may not truly take off until we have good quality, affordable 3D TVs in homes (of course, there is a catch-22 there, but the current 3D films might be just enough to kickstart the 3D TV industry). --Tango (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of becoming discussionary, I'd suggest that one obstacle to 3D films becoming ubiquitous is that most if not all systems require the wearing of special spectacles: this is often (depending on the designs) impractical for the sizeable proportion of the potential audience (such as myself) who already have to wear sight-correcting spectacles and cannot or prefer not to undergo corrective surgery or use contact lenses. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D glasses are usually designed to fit over other glasses - do they not do so? --Tango (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do; the new 3D glasses fit perfectly well over even my coke-bottle lenses. The new glasses are are not only large enough to fit over prescription eyewear, they're also sturdy enough to sit there without constantly requiring adjustment/support. Much better than those horrid blue/red dealies. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides looking goofy, most modern 3d glasses, (both passive ones for the the RealD theaters, and the active ones for TVs.) work fine with prescription glasses.

red/blue glasses are also available in that format, but I've never heard of anyone actually bothering to use them. (I've got a pair of red/blue clip-ons, but mostly for their comedy effect, I rarely use them to actually see 3d.) APL (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that very few homes have 3D televisions is a major factor in why theaters are adopting 3D. Home video has emerged as the major competitor to the cineplexes and they need to differentiate themselves to compete. Why pay $10 to see a movie in the theaters when you can wait a few months and watch the Netflix rental at home on your Bluray disc player and your big, 1080p TV without the overpriced popcorn or some yahoo talking through the movie? One reason Avatar was such a huge success is that moviegoers knew that if they wanted to see all the technical wizardry, they'd have to go see it in 3D at the theater. The theaters not only get the increased audience, but can also charge a premium for the 3D tickets. —D. Monack ^talk 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for Avatar's success, though, was that it was the first of its kind. I doubt any other films made with the same technology will do as well. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? I mean, it was first of its kind for certain production effects (which matters if you are a director), but it was certainly not even close to being the first 3D CGI film or anything like that. People didn't go to Avatar because it was first, they went because it was pretty and hyped and was carefully engineered (by a great master of such engineering) to appeal to a wide variety of audiences fairly effectively. It was well-hyped and well-executed, but in terms of its technology, I don't think the average viewer really could appreciate the novelty other than the fact that it was pretty. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other films have used a combination of live action and CGI, combining the two with motion capture? --Tango (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side, Roger Ebert has a lot to say about why 3D movies suck. —D. Monack ^talk 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm biased because I use 3D displays every day, I still maintain that that article is very sloppily written. He claims that 'depth of field' effects are impossible in 3d, even though he's seen Avatar. Throughout the article he confuses real in-camera 3d with fake post-production 3d even though he knows the difference. His discussion on ticket prices seems to have no relation to reality. And he relies far too heavily on the sentimental "we didn't have this in the olden days" arguments that would work just as well if he were ranting against color or sound. APL (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the other things, where I live, the surcharges he talks about are indeed real and indeed that ridiculously expensive. I actually won't be bothered to see things in 3D anytime soon unless it is immensely important to the movie presentation itself, because I don't find the effect terribly compelling (I get used to it pretty quickly) and I can't afford to up my total ticket prices just for that. The difference between two 3D tickets and two 2D tickets is the price of a third ticket, at my local megaplex. A lot of money to spend in a tight economy, especially if the effects are subtle. (And if they aren't subtle—like the ones that whack you in the face—then I'm not happy either.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. This must vary quite a bit by region. The couple of places around here where I go the surcharge is invariably one dollar per ticket.

I'll cheerfully admit that I was using only personal experience and not hard data in that part of my criticism of Ebert's article. APL (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This episode of NPR's Science Friday goes into a lot of detail about 3D movies, including the technical and artistic aspects, the pros and cons of different technologies, the significant number of people who find it unpleasant, different home (disk and broadcast) 3d technologies, and talks about whether it's a fad or whether it's here to stay. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D movies also carry the risk of directly causing pregnancy which much have some of an impact [2] Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Party (Iceland) joke party?

Would Besti flokkurinn be classified as a joke party? F (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a matter of opinion, but the editors of List of frivolous political parties have classified it so. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, perhaps not. Gabbe (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners Court of Victoria and changes to law

Someone told me that in the past, certain findings from the Coroners Court of Victoria have driven change in the law. I was unable to find any specific examples. Could someone hint me in the right direction? I can understand mainstream courts (Magistrates, County, Supreme) are able to 'change' law by setting Precedent, but how can a court that can't actually make rulings change law? — Deon ^talk 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pure guess, Deon. The Prime Minister of Australia, Harold Holt, disappeared while swimming on 17 December 1967. A massive but fruitless search of the sea was conducted for two days. On 19 December he was declared presumed dead, a necessary step before his commission as PM could be withdrawn by the Governor-General and a replacement PM sworn in. His term as Prime Minister officially continued until 19 December, even though it was widely considered most likely he had actually died on the 17th (hence, the office of Prime Minister was for two days occupied by a dead man, who was most likely shark food by that stage.) There was no mechanism in Victorian law at the time for reporting presumed or suspected deaths to the Victorian Coroner, hence Holt’s status remained “presumed dead”, with effect from 19 December 1967. This remained the case until 2005, when the law was changed. At that late stage, the Coroner was finally able to re-examine some old cases of presumed and suspected deaths, and returned a finding that Holt had indeed drowned on the day he disappeared, 17 December. See Harold Holt#Enquiries into Holt's disappearance for full details. I’m guessing that the Coroner had some role to play in having the law changed so that these sorts of cases could be investigated by the Coroner and brought to closure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor correction, although JackofOz probably knows this, our article says the law was changed in 1985. However it wasn't until 2003 that all pre 1985 cases were reopened and 2005 when he was declared dead (I presume because of the workload for the large number/161 of pre 1985 cases it took so long, perhaps one of the reasons no one did anything until 2003) Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "episcopal list"

A book on medieval history refres to "episcopal lists." These are also refered to in some articles on the WEB. What are these lists and what they enumerate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.218.162 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An episcopal list is a list of bishops, usually a chronological record of those who have occupied a particular see. Deor (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were very important for establishing orders of precedence, which could get very tricky when hundreds of bishops got together at a council. They were often also the only historical information about a particular place, and the only thing giving a sense of continuity between late antiquity and the later middle ages. And we have an article! See Notitiae Episcopatuum. 00:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Impregnable fortresses

Hello everyone, are there castles or fortresses that have been besieged but never been conquered by enemy armies ? I can't seem to find the information by searching. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome is one notable fortress that comes immediately to mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to answer Mont Saint-Michel, but it seems it was indeed conquered in the 6th or 7th century. However, one could argue that the Armorican stronghold was not the same fortress as the one that later appeared in connection with the monastery during the Middle Ages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+besieged +"never conquered" brought up quite a few for me. The first hits are Runneburg Castle in Germany (claim here) and Sparrenberg Castle in Germany (claim here). Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krak des Chevaliers was known as an impenetrable fortress. It was beseiged and not defeated though ultimately it was turned over to a group of attackers because the defenders were given a fake letter from their commander ordering them to do so. The fortified city of Carcassonne also comes to mind. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople was impregnable, and although it was conquered twice, it was not through brute force against the walls, but by accident or trickery. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had thousand year old walls which offered no defense against artillery, and it was conquered by superior force. In the face of inevitable doom, defections and "trickery" are common. Claiming "The other side cheated!" does not lessen a defeat. It is not a game of football. Edison (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was the 11th century part that fell down; see Fall of Constantinople. As to whether a gate was left open, opinion is divided. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all folks ! Have a nice day. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaikie Galt real-life antecedent in John Buchan book

I just found the article James Galt, about the Scottish football player (active 1906-1914). Was the character Jaikie Galt in John Buchan's novel Castle Gay (published in 1930 but set earlier, around 1923) named after him, or are the names and professions just a coincidence? This question applies to Scotland and literature in English. It's not homework. Thanks. 70.24.113.45 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but the novel Martin Eden, by Jack London, has a story within a story which has a character named Wiki-Wiki. Our article about the novel has a quotation about the character, which concludes: "It is real. It is true. And I must write life as I see it." So the character may have been part of the inspiration of Wikipedia ;-). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of you to take the time to write something, but what you wrote has nothing to do with Galt, Buchan or Castle Gay. Can anyone answer my question? 70.24.113.45 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read Castle Gay yet, but I do like Buchan. I would suspect that he may have drawn on real characters for inspiration - indeed, much of The 39 Steps and Greenmantle was drawn from his intelligence work. I too would appreciate a good answer to your very good question.

That the real-life Association Football player's name and/or character inspired those of the fictional Rugby Football player in Castle Gay (free text available here) seems quite plausible, but might well be impossible to prove or disprove unless Buchan himself made written reference to the fact: if he did it might not be contained in a published work by himself or by a biographer or critic, but might be found in his papers which appear to be held here.

It might be worthwhile (and more interesting for you than if one of us does it for you) if you were to pursue the question with The John Buchan Society whose website is here. Another possible avenue of investigation might be reviews of the book in Scottish newspapers and literary magazines of the period, which might be more likely to comment on the coincidence than those from outwith Scotland. Large Scottish public libraries should have bound or microfilmed archives of such publications.

Note that Castle Gay (1930) is the second of the three 'Dickson McCunn' books, which commenced with Huntingtower (1922) and concluded with The House of the Four Winds (1935): the character Jaikie Galt was apparently introduced in Huntingtower. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. It's very good of you. I'm not in Scotland, so those archives are out, but the one in Kingston and the website are definite leads. Thank you again. I'm very happy to receive an answer. P.S. You are right that the character appears in all three books; it was in Castle Gay that his surname was mentioned for the first time, as well as his (rugby) football playing. 70.31.38.176 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg

I remember seeing a documentary a number of years ago concerning how St. Petersburg was build on swamp land and so was interested to day to read more about this and the processes involved, however the above mentioned article does not mention this at all, can some one please illuminate this for me, is it true, and what were the prosseses involved. Further to this, the article mentions that no bridges were allowed to be build over the river Neva until 1850, but does not mention why, please help with this. Finally, the article also mentions that there was a prohibition on the spacing of buildings, please can this too be expanded upon for me, I have never been to Russia (though I would sorely love to) but it would appear in pictures I have seen that the buildings are generally very well spaced and far from each other, is this the case in reality? What was this prohibition the article mentions, are how was it enforced, what were the regulation and when, why and was it stopped. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I visited St. Petersburg a few years ago. I don't remember why they didn't build bridges over the Neva (possibly for aesthetic reasons, though practical ones are possible). Canals were dug by hand (many serfs died in the process) and the structural layout of the city was, if I recall correctly, designed to minimize the amount of unseen back alley space where subversive activities could be planned. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that Peter the Great hired Dutch engineers to help plan the drainage of the wetlands on which the city was built. Building canals helps to lower the water table, so that was obviously part of the plan. (The pattern of concentric canals on the left bank of the Neva is reminiscent of Amsterdam.) See this article. As for why bridges were not built over the Neva, this is speculative, but the Neva is a major navigable waterway connecting the Baltic Sea with Lake Ladoga. It seems plausible that before 1850 it was more important to allow passage upriver to (tall-masted) sailing ships than to bridge the river for foot and wagon traffic. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the swampy location, all of the large buildings in St. Petersburg were constructed on timber piles. Deor (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yami no Waru

This is a question about Japanese mythology. I'm seeking informations about Yami no Waru. It should be something like a Shinto Kami, but that's everything I was able to find about it. --151.51.5.254 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you hear about it? The name seems to simply translate into The Bad Guy of the Dark, in what appears to be decisively modern Japanese. Are you sure this is not just an invention for a modern story-telling medium? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could request a translation in to kanji (?) on the language desk - then use search to look for pages in japanese (maybe add an additional term like 'shrine' or 'shinto' to get more relevant results) - and then use google translate or babelfish to convert the pages into english - (I've assumed that there will be pages on this in japanese) 77.86.47.199 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A city in Iraq

A friend of my was recently shipped out to "poogie" Iraq. I've tried to find this place on a map but have been unsuccessful. I'm sure the spelling in wrong; I did try variations. Do you know of it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.142.96 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Arabic even has a 'p' sound in their alphabet, so I would guess it is a nickname of a military base or such? What branch of the military is your friend in? Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place with a name remotely like this in this list of military facilities in Iraq. On the other hand, this site provides a number of slang definitions for poogie suggesting that the questioner or his friend may be playing an adolescent prank. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe military slang. In the Royal Navy, Portsmouth is known as "Pompey" and Devonport is "Oggie" ("oggie" also being naval slang for a Cornish pasty). Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk

In the first episode of The Tudors, the Duke of Buckingham calls Charles Brandon "son of a whore", which Brandon agrees with. Is there any historical truth concerning his mother's proclivities? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our article has his mother as Elizabeth Bruyn, who is, according to here, daughter of Sir Henry Bruyn. So the official story is one of a noblewoman, but I can't comment on whether that's true or not. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really asking as to whether she was really a prostitute, but whether she might have had affairs. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance that in the episode (which I haven't seen), Buckingham intends the "whore" to refer to Brandon's father (~~who, as our article on him states, fathered several illegitimate children~~ Oops, no, it was Brandon himself, not his father)? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tudors is not to be taken seriously as the events and people are sadly, shockingly lacking in historical accuracy. Did you notice Henry VIII was slim with black hair, and Brandon's wife was the widowed Queen of Portugal?!!!! I'm afraid that series was little more than a 16th century soap opera with writers too lazy to pick up a history book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII only gained that famous weight later in his life though. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his youth, he had an athletic build, but in no way was he slim like Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. The entire series contained more historical inaccuracies than even Braveheart, which is saying alot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War III

Is this a likely sequence of events for World War III?

North Korea declares war on South Korea.
America and Japan declare war on North Korea.
China declares war on South Korea, America, and Japan.
Iran declares war on Israel.
America declares war on Iran.
England, France, and Germany declare war on Iran and North Korea.

Allies: America, England, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, and South Korea

Axis: China, Iran, and North Korea

--207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a World War III article; beyond that it's speculation, which isn't the business of the Wikipedia reference desk. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that article is locked, but it contains the verbless sentence "On 12–26 June 1999, Pristina International Airport over the Pristina Airport in Kosovo." Should be "Russian and NATO forces had a standoff over the Pristina International Airport in Kosovo." 81.131.39.118 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to say - I fixed it. Someone had removed the section from a link, since the section no longer existed, and had accidentally removed the link text as well! --Tango (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Except now it links to the same Pristina Airport article twice in a row. I know, nobody's ever satisfied, etc. 213.122.35.20 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to forget that North and South Korea area already at war, since the Korean War never officially ended. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed; discussion on the talk page. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shared revenue

Many wiki type sites have found that user contributions have attracted a large number of viewers and for this reason have solicited and obtained advertising dollars. Hurrah's for capitalism! But most of these sites do not share revenue with contributors in evidence of the Communist claim that capitalism takes unfair advantage of contributors. Are there any such wiki type sites that do share advertising and/or other revenue with contributors? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If contributors want revenue, they'll vacate the sites that don't share revenue in favor of those that do. This will force sites that want to keep contributors to share revenue. If this flight does not happen, it is because contributors' desire to share the revenue is less strong than their desire to contribute. The great thing about capitalism is that it generates the right solution without the need for omnipotence and omniscience. If we had these powers, communism would work perfectly well. Wikiant (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you realize the extreme gap between the rich and the poor. Poor people who can get online and make a free contribution may not be able to start a meager wiki site of their own even as a group that would attract advertisers because they do not have the resources to get started as do the rich who can hire college trained and high priced artists and designers, etc. to provide a fancy dancy web site. Consequently the discrepancy in wealth favors the rich, as in the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To quel the communist claim and evidence then that the rich live off the backs of the poor I don't think revenue sharing is too much to ask. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you realize that the problem you just described has nothing to do with a gap between the rich and the poor. It has to do with a gap between those who are entrepreneurial and those who aren't. The point of financial markets is to bring together those who have ideas but no capital with those who have capital but no ideas. You might say that the poor don't have access to formal business training and so, again, the issue is a poor-rich gap. That, however, contradicts your statement that the poor "can get online." You don't need formal business training -- just inquisitiveness, intelligence, and a penchant for hard work. Wikiant (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The public library offers a way for anyone to get online but with such limited time and access they could never hope to develop a wiki of their own but only make contributions. These then are the people your entrepreneurs are living on like some companies that build employee turnover into their workforce model. They get enough turnover to keep then in caviar but share none with those doing the job. It is a common business technique that gives motive for such things as 9/11. Wonder if any of your entrepreneurs enjoyed being inside the World Trade Center when it came tumbling down which a little revenue sharing may not have supported? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe MyWikiBiz [3] which was founded by User:MyWikiBiz who was banned from wikipedia does something like this. It hasn't been particularly successful. The founder also runs for the wikimedia foundation board regularly, so far never winning. I would add that distributing 'revenue' could potentially be problematic from the viewpoint of WMFs non profit status, but I don't really know. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"So far never winning" is a very generous description of Gregory Koh's success (or lack thereof) in WMF board elections! --Tango (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the MyWikiBiz or Koh. However, the type of revenue sharing I am suggesting applies only to for-profit wiki sites such as the Wikia site via advertizing. Non-profit entities like the Wikipedia are naturally excluded by virtue of Jimmy Wale's "antithetical" declaration. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]